In the fiercely competitive sub-$100 smartphone market, the BLU Advance 4.0 L3 and Alcatel Pixi 4 (3.5) represent compelling options for users prioritizing affordability. While both devices cater to basic smartphone needs, significant differences in their processing power and underlying architecture dictate which phone delivers a smoother, more responsive experience. This comparison dissects these differences to help you make an informed decision.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user seeking a slightly more responsive experience, the BLU Advance 4.0 L3 is the better choice. Its quad-core processor, clocked at 1.2 GHz, offers a noticeable performance advantage over the Alcatel Pixi 4 (3.5)'s dual-core 1.0 GHz Mediatek chipset, making everyday tasks feel less sluggish.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 - SIM 1 & SIM 2 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 - A110U |
| Speed | HSPA 21.1/5.76 Mbps | HSPA 21.1/5.76 Mbps |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA | GSM / HSPA |
| | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 1900 / 2100 - A110L |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2016, January. Released 2016, Q3 | 2017, January. Released 2017, January |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Body |
|---|
| Dimensions | 116 x 62 x 10 mm (4.57 x 2.44 x 0.39 in) | 126.6 x 66.3 x 11.4 mm (4.98 x 2.61 x 0.45 in) |
| SIM | Micro-SIM | Dual SIM (Mini-SIM) |
| Weight | - | 127 g (4.48 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Resolution | 320 x 480 pixels, 3:2 ratio (~165 ppi density) | 480 x 800 pixels, 5:3 ratio (~233 ppi density) |
| Size | 3.5 inches, 36.5 cm2 (~50.7% screen-to-body ratio) | 4.0 inches, 45.5 cm2 (~54.3% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | TFT | TFT |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Dual-core 1.0 GHz Cortex-A7 | Quad-core 1.2 GHz |
| Chipset | Mediatek MT6572M (28 nm) | - |
| GPU | Mali-400 | Mali-400 |
| OS | Android 5.1 (Lollipop) | Android 6.0 (Marshmallow) |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDHC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC |
| Internal | 4GB 512MB RAM | 4GB 512MB RAM |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | LED flash | LED flash |
| Single | 2 MP | 5 MP |
| Video | 480p@15fps | 720@30fps |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Single | VGA | 2 MP |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 4.0, A2DP | 4.0, A2DP |
| NFC | No | No |
| Positioning | GPS (optional) | GPS |
| Radio | FM radio | FM radio |
| USB | microUSB 2.0 | microUSB 2.0 |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n, Wi-Fi Direct, hotspot | Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Accelerometer | Accelerometer |
| Battery |
|---|
| Stand-by | Up to 250 h (2G) / Up to 250 h (3G) | Up to 700 h (2G) / Up to 500 h (3G) |
| Talk time | Up to 4 h (3G) | Up to 17 h (2G) / Up to 12 h (3G) |
| Type | Li-Ion 1300 mAh, removable | Li-Po 1300 mAh, removable |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Black, White | Gray, Silver, Gold, Rose Gold |
| Models | - | Advance 4.0 L3 |
alcatel Pixi 4 (3.5)
- Extremely compact size
- Very affordable price point
- Simple and easy to use
- Slow performance due to dual-core processor
- Limited multitasking capabilities
- Low-resolution camera
BLU Advance 4.0 L3
- Faster quad-core processor
- More responsive user experience
- Better multitasking capabilities
- Still limited by low-end hardware
- Camera quality likely similar to Alcatel Pixi 4
- May be slightly larger than the Alcatel Pixi 4
Display Comparison
Neither device boasts a standout display. Both feature 4-inch screens, suggesting a focus on pocketability over media consumption. Specifics regarding panel technology (IPS vs. TFT) and resolution are unavailable, but given the price point, it's safe to assume both utilize basic TFT panels. Bezels are likely substantial on both, maximizing screen real estate within the compact form factor. Color accuracy and viewing angles will likely be limited on both devices.
Camera Comparison
Camera performance on both devices is expected to be minimal. Without specific sensor details, it’s reasonable to assume both feature low-resolution sensors (likely 2MP or 5MP) capable of capturing basic photos in good lighting conditions. Image quality will suffer in low light, and features like HDR or advanced image processing are unlikely to be present. Focusing on sensor size or aperture is irrelevant given the likely limitations of both cameras.
Performance
The core difference lies in the processors. The BLU Advance 4.0 L3’s quad-core 1.2 GHz CPU represents a significant architectural leap over the Alcatel Pixi 4 (3.5)’s dual-core 1.0 GHz Mediatek MT6572M. While the MT6572M, built on a 28nm process, was adequate for its time, the quad-core configuration of the L3 allows for better parallel processing, resulting in faster app loading times and smoother multitasking. The Cortex-A7 architecture is present in both, but the increased core count in the BLU device provides a tangible benefit. The L3 will handle basic web browsing and social media with less stuttering.
Battery Life
Battery capacity details are missing for both devices. However, given their compact size and low-power processors, battery life is likely to be sufficient for a full day of light use (calls, texts, occasional browsing). Charging times will likely be slow, as neither device is expected to support fast charging technologies. The slightly more efficient quad-core processor in the BLU Advance 4.0 L3 *may* offer a marginal improvement in battery endurance, but this is speculative without concrete data.
Buying Guide
Buy the Alcatel Pixi 4 (3.5) if you absolutely need the smallest possible device and are willing to accept significant performance limitations for extremely basic tasks like calls and texts. Buy the BLU Advance 4.0 L3 if you prioritize a more fluid user experience, even for simple apps, and want a phone capable of handling light multitasking without excessive lag.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Will the BLU Advance 4.0 L3 run popular apps like WhatsApp and Facebook smoothly?
The BLU Advance 4.0 L3's quad-core processor should handle WhatsApp and Facebook reasonably well, though expect some loading times and occasional lag, especially with multiple apps open. It's designed for basic app usage, not intensive multitasking.
❓ Is the Alcatel Pixi 4 (3.5) a good choice for a first smartphone for a senior citizen?
The Alcatel Pixi 4 (3.5)'s simplicity and compact size could be appealing for a first-time smartphone user, particularly a senior citizen. However, its slow performance might be frustrating. The larger buttons and simplified interface of some Android Go Edition phones might be a better alternative.
❓ Can either of these phones be used for mobile gaming?
Neither phone is suitable for serious mobile gaming. The processors lack the power to run demanding games smoothly. Simple, older games might be playable at low settings, but expect a subpar experience.
